Or they could become self-funded, or the "public option" in a hybrid system, forced to upgrade the quality of their product to maintain traffic on the theory no one will pay for a lousy, accelerated job. This would mean parking the best, most experienced personnel in the lower courts, where decision-making is typically determinative. If litigants are satisfied below, such positioning could eliminate the need for some of the vast appellate bureaucracy -- more potential budget savings. Because here's the clunker we have now: There's the "avoidance canon," where judges either don't decide or rule on a ground which really doesn't resolve anything, but disposes of a matter to get it off their desk. Expensive and inconclusive for litigants who expect and deserve more than a drive on the road to nowhere.
Another major problem, at all levels, is law-clerk justice. Just out of school, a bunch of mostly 25-year-olds in training, making impactful decisions that their bosses blindly sign off on. As these rulings travel up the system, they are routinely rubber-stamped by more apprentices, who cover their peers' tracks in this self-interest network where everyone's paving the way for their next career move. A stop sign should be put to this extra-constitutional exercise of judicial power and payment of redundant salaries.
In a Virginia running on fumes, officials need to look past their blind spots to non-retread solutions. That includes the commonwealth's side street and back alley courts. It's as easy as A, B, See . . .